Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 F. App'x 628

Wease v. Angelone

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 13, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-12-13

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Rose v. Lee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-12-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Michael C. Wease, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as time-barred. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

¶2 To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Wease must make “a substantial *629 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant “must demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Upon examination of Wease’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded that the petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, we deny Wease’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

¶3 DISMISSED

/52/fappx/628 · .json · Public domain